2006-12-26 13:45:13 · 7 answers · asked by AD 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Would have been a lot cheaper to toss a couple frags down his spider hole that have a long drawn out trial too. but capturing him was the right thing to do since he was reduced froma cruel dictator to a harmless old man hiding in a hole when they found him.. at least he will survive long enough to be executed. not like Milosovich (sp?) who got off easy IMO
2006-12-26 14:01:09 · answer #1 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
War was not started for catching Saddam. There is political agenda. America wants military presence to maintain stability in the area. Unfortunately situation has deteriorated. World should not be spectator to the evens. Those who are promoting insurgency in Iraq are revengeful groups hardy have any sympathy with people of Iraq.
2006-12-26 22:07:15 · answer #2 · answered by snashraf 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hell Yes A LOT Cheaper It's not like we haven't attempted things of this nature before . Does anyone remember the C.I.A. plot to assassinate Castro?
2006-12-26 21:53:43 · answer #3 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What a novel idea! Yes, it would have saved our standing in the world community, thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
2006-12-26 21:53:07 · answer #4 · answered by cindy c 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
would have been cheaper just to allow Iran to take him out rather than allow Rummy and Reagan to supply Saddam with "dual purpose" farm chemicals, to prevent Iran from doing so.
2006-12-26 21:51:47 · answer #5 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sure it would have been, but totally illegal. We have laws against sending people in undercover to assinate or kidnapp leaders of other countries.
But no law against sending fighting forces in to kill 30,000 citizens in the process of getting their President:(
2006-12-26 21:50:58 · answer #6 · answered by Nort 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.
2006-12-26 21:52:49 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋